Assignment: The Meyer-Allen Instrument

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership,
Organizational Commitment, and Voice and Antisocial Behaviors

Émilie Lapointe1 • Christian Vandenberghe2

Received: 14 June 2015 / Accepted: 17 December 2015 / Published online: 26 December 2015

� Springer Science+ Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This study examines the relationships of ser-

vant leadership to organizational commitment, voice

behaviors, and antisocial behaviors. Adopting a multi-

faceted approach to commitment, we hypothesized that

servant leadership would be positively related to affective,

normative, and perceived sacrifice commitment, but unre-

lated to few alternatives commitment. We further hypoth-

esized that affective commitment would be positively

related to voice behaviors, controlling for the other com-

mitment components, and would mediate a positive rela-

tionship between servant leadership and voice behaviors.

Similarly, we hypothesized that normative commitment

would be negatively related to antisocial behaviors, con-

trolling for the other commitment components, and would

mediate a negative relationship between servant leadership

and antisocial behaviors. These predictions were tested

using matched data from a sample of 181 Canadian cus-

tomer service employees and their managers. Results lar-

gely supported the above predictions. Importantly,

affective commitment mediated a positive relationship

between servant leadership and voice behaviors. Yet, while

servant leadership was positively related to normative

commitment and the latter was negatively related to anti-

social behaviors, the indirect effect of servant leadership on

these behaviors through normative commitment was

nonsignificant. Theoretical implications and future research

directions are discussed.

Keywords Antisocial behaviors � Organizational
commitment � Servant leadership � Voice behaviors

Introduction

Following highly mediatized corporate scandals (e.g.,

Kirchner 2010; McLean and Elkind 2003), recent research

has emphasized the importance for leaders to behave eth-

ically (Dinh et al. 2014) and for organizations to give back

to the community in which they operate (Sun 2013).

Researchers and practitioners alike have also shown

increased interest in the development of leaders who put

the interests of their followers and organizations ahead of

their own (e.g., Arkin 2009; Boyatzis and McKee 2005;

George 2003; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck 2011). In

the same vein, followers are increasingly seeking leaders

who take care of their relationship with them, demonstrate

trustworthiness, build loyalty in their teams, and focus on

followers’ growth (e.g., Carter and Baghurst 2014; Nichols

and Cottrell 2014). As a response to these emerging trends

and expectations, scholars (e.g., Liden et al. 2008, 2014;

Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011) have

recently rediscovered and turned to servant leadership

(Greenleaf 1970, 1977), a model of leadership that con-

centrates on the development of employees’ full potential,

as an approach to leadership that has the capacity to meet

the above challenges.

Servant leadership depicts leaders’ first purpose as

serving more than leading, stresses the importance of

personal integrity, and acknowledges that organizations’

responsibilities should extend to the community and the

& Émilie Lapointe
[email protected]

1
Nottingham University School China, The

University of Nottingham Ningbo China, 199 Taikang East

Road, Ningbo 315100, China

2
HEC Montréal, 3000 Chemin de la Côte Sainte-Catherine,

Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 148:99–115

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9&domain=pdf

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9

society (Carter and Baghurst 2014; Graham 1991; Green-

leaf 1977, 1998; Liden et al. 2008, Parris and Peachey

2013). Servant leadership also focuses on the development

of strong, long-term relationships between leaders and

employees (Liden et al. 2008). Because leaders personify

the organization (Eisenberger et al. 2002; Liden et al.

2004), servant leaders also contribute to strengthen the

relationship between employees and the organization (e.g.,

van Dierendonck et al. 2014). Yet, as employee–organi-

zation relationships are multifaceted (Coyle-Shapiro and

Shore 2007; Meyer and Allen 1991; Shore et al. 2009; Tsui

et al. 1997), the nature and strength of the relationship with

the organization that servant leaders come to develop

among their followers remains unclear. Furthermore, the

fact that servant leaders aim to influence followers’ atti-

tudes and behaviors without relying on positional or

authoritative power (Carter and Baghurst 2014) raises

questions regarding how they ‘‘lead’’ employees to posi-

tively contribute to the organization and refrain from

engaging in negative behavior (Neubert et al. 2008; van

Dierendonck et al. 2014). Accordingly, this paper aims to

explore the relationships between servant leadership and

organizational commitment components, which capture

different bases for employees’ relationship with the orga-

nization (i.e., affective, normative, and continuance, the

latter including ‘‘perceived sacrifice’’ and ‘‘few alterna-

tives’’ dimensions; Bentein et al. 2005; Meyer and Allen

1991), voice behaviors, which refer to the expression of

constructive ideas to improve work procedures (Van Dyne

and LePine 1998), and antisocial behaviors, which repre-

sent behaviors that cause harm to others or the organization

(Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998).

Using Meyer and Allen’s (1991; see also Meyer and

Herscovitch 2001) three-component model of commitment,

we contend that servant leadership will foster affective

commitment (i.e., an employee’s sense of emotional

attachment to the organization), normative commitment

(i.e., an employee’s sense of loyalty based on perceived

obligation toward the organization), and perceived sacrifice

commitment (i.e., an employee’s sense that organizational

membership provides valuable benefits). These predictions

are based on the idea that servant leaders provide

employees with positive and favorable experiences, which

should foster emotional attachment to the organization

through a social exchange process (Meyer and Allen 1991;

Meyer et al. 2002), generate feelings of indebtedness and

moral obligation toward the organization (González and

Guillén 2008; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010), and raise

employees’ awareness regarding what they stand to lose in

case of leaving (Powell and Meyer 2004; Vandenberghe

and Panaccio 2012; Vandenberghe et al. 2011), leading to

affective, normative, and perceived sacrifice commitment,

respectively. We do not expect servant leadership to foster

few alternatives commitment, as this commitment com-

ponent is based on external contingencies (i.e., employ-

ment opportunities; Powell and Meyer 2004;

Vandenberghe et al. 2011).

Second, based on the premise that distinct motivational

forces underlie commitment components (Meyer et al.

2004), we postulate that affective commitment will be

positively related to employee voice behaviors and that

normative commitment will be negatively related to

employee antisocial behaviors, controlling for the other

commitment components. As affective commitment is

rooted in a desire to proactively serve the organization’s

interests (Meyer et al. 2004), affectively committed

employees should be particularly willing to make con-

structive suggestions that improve organizational efficiency

(Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Relatedly,

normative commitment is based on a concern about the

rightness of one’s behaviors and moral rectitude toward the

organization (González and Guillén 2008; Meyer et al.

2004; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010). Hence, employees

with strong normative commitment should be inclined to

refrain from engaging in behaviors that would damage the

organization’s property or hurt its members (Hershcovis

et al. 2007; Robinson and Bennett 1995; Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly 1998). By extension, we also argue that

(a) affective commitment will mediate a positive relation-

ship between servant leadership and employee voice

behaviors and (b) normative commitment will mediate a

negative relationship between servant leadership and

employee antisocial behaviors.

We contend that the present investigation is a worth-

while and timely research endeavor. As highlighted by

Beck (2014), Hunter et al. (2013), and Parris and Peachey

(2013), recent servant leadership research has mainly

focused on the development of measurement instruments

rather than on understanding servant leadership’s implica-

tions for employee attitudes and behavior. First, the present

study goes beyond the rare research endeavors targeting

servant leadership’s relationships to organizational com-

mitment components (Miao et al. 2014) by distinguishing

between perceived sacrifice and few alternatives as distinct

dimensions within continuance commitment. As such, this

study intends to show that the absence of a significant

relationship between servant leadership and continuance

commitment (Miao et al. 2014) may be caused by the two

subcomponents being confounded within a general mea-

sure of the construct. In doing so, the discriminant validity

of commitment components, which has been questioned

(Bergman 2006; Jaros 1997; Ko et al. 1997; Powell and

Meyer 2004), will be further clarified.

Second, the emerging work on servant leadership’s

workings has essentially focused on servant leaders’ ability

to promote positive behaviors (e.g., in-role performance

100 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

and customer service behaviors; Chen et al. 2015; Liden

et al. 2014). This study extends this work by looking at

relationships to employee voice, i.e., a specific form of

extra-role behavior, and antisocial behaviors, and how

commitment components intervene in these linkages. Thus,

the present investigation explores a wider array of behav-

iors (positive and negative) that can potentially be influ-

enced by servant leadership and looks at the psychological

mechanisms involved in these influences. This should

expand our view of servant leadership’s implications

(Hunter et al. 2013) and contribute to identify the specific

mechanisms associated with the emergence of voice and

antisocial behaviors (Hershcovis et al. 2007; Van Dyne and

LePine 1998) (see also Dalal 2005).

Third, this study uses data collected among Canadian

customer service departments in which employee reports of

their commitment to the organization and manager’s ser-

vant leadership behaviors are matched to managers’ reports

of employee voice and antisocial behaviors. The use of a

Canadian sample contributes to a trend toward studying

servant leadership’s influence across cultures (Hale and

Fields 2007; Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010) while the context

of customer service has been suggested to be particularly

suitable to study servant leadership’s effects (Carter and

Baghurst 2014; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, b; Liden et al. 2014;

Wu et al. 2013). Using matched data from employees and

their managers is also in line with recent calls toward going

beyond single-level, self-reported data in this area of

research (e.g., Chen et al. 2015; Liden et al. 2014; Newman

et al. 2015). We now turn to the presentation of this study’s

theoretical background and hypotheses.

Theory and Hypotheses

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership was first introduced by Greenleaf in the

1970s (Greenleaf 1970, 1977). Viewing servant leadership

as a way of living more than a way of managing people,

Greenleaf (1977) emphasized the fact that servant leader-

ship should begin with ‘‘the natural feeling that one wants

to serve, to serve first’’ (p. 7). Although ground-breaking,

Greenleaf’s early work (1970, 1977) reflected more a ser-

vant leadership philosophy than a servant leadership theory

characterized by specific dimensions and theoretical

propositions (Liden et al. 2015). Such developments were

initiated more recently (see Parris and Peachey 2013, for a

review). One of the most compelling frameworks of ser-

vant leadership has been proposed by Liden et al. (2008;

see also Liden et al. 2015).

According to Liden and colleagues, servant leadership

consists of seven dimensions: emotional healing or being

sensitive to the personal concerns of followers; creating

value for the community or demonstrating a conscious,

genuine concern for helping the community; conceptual

skills or showing knowledge about the organization and the

tasks that are prerequisites for providing help to followers;

empowering followers or encouraging and helping fol-

lowers to identify and solve problems, as well as to

determine when and how to complete work tasks; helping

followers grow and succeed or demonstrating a genuine

concern for followers’ career growth and development;

putting subordinates first or using actions and words to

make it clear to followers that satisfying their work needs is

a priority; and finally, behaving ethically or interacting

openly, fairly, and honestly with others.

As Liden et al. (2015, p. 254) posited, through the above

facets, servant leaders have the potential to influence the

behavior of employees as well as the well-being of orga-

nizations because they promote integrity, concentrate on

helping others, and give high priority to ‘‘bringing out the

full potential of followers.’’ Thus, together, these dimen-

sions capture the essential behaviors that servant leaders

should demonstrate and, as such, they can be combined to

investigate global servant leadership (Hu and Liden 2011;

Liden et al. 2015). As this study aims to examine the

effects and workings of global servant leadership rather

than those of specific servant leadership dimensions,

adopting Liden et al.’s (2008; see also Liden et al. 2015)

framework appears appropriate.

Servant Leadership and Employee Organizational

Commitment

According to Meyer and Allen (1991; see also Meyer et al.

1993; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001), organizational com-

mitment is a multifaceted construct capturing the strength

and nature of employees’ relationship with the organiza-

tion. As Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) emphasized,

organizational commitment represents a force that binds an

individual to the organization and to a course of action of

relevance to that target. Yet, this force is associated with

different mindsets reflecting the bases of employees’ rela-

tionship to the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991; Meyer

and Herscovitch 2001). Affective commitment captures

employees’ emotional attachment to the organization

(Meyer and Allen 1991; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001),

normative commitment reflects employees’ feeling of

obligation toward the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991;

Meyer and Herscovitch 2001), while continuance com-

mitment, which subsumes two subcomponents (Bentein

et al. 2005; McGee and Ford 1987; Meyer et al. 1990),

refers to employees’ perception of (a) the cost associated

with leaving the organization (i.e., perceived sacrifice

commitment) or (b) the lack of alternative employment

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 101

123

opportunities (i.e., few alternatives commitment) (Meyer

and Allen 1991; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). Thus,

commitment components represent distinct, yet related

bases or motives that are used by employees to make sense

of their behavior within and toward the organization.

Affective commitment, normative commitment, and

perceived sacrifice commitment have in common that they

are all influenced by work and/or socialization experiences,

whereas few alternatives commitment is based on external

contingencies pertaining to employment opportunities

(e.g., economic conditions; Powell and Meyer 2004; Van-

denberghe et al. 2011). As servant leadership is aimed at

fostering followers’ holistic development (Beck 2014;

Hunter et al. 2013; Liden et al. 2008), it should primarily

strengthen affective commitment. Indeed, servant leaders

are thought to provide followers with support (emotional

healing dimension) and opportunities to learn new skills

(helping subordinates grow and succeed dimension), self-

develop, and actively participate in decision-making and

problem solving (empowering dimension) (Liden et al.

2008; Page and Wong 2000). These behaviors are likely to

make the experience of work more challenging and

rewarding. As leaders usually represent the organization in

the eyes of employees (Eisenberger et al. 2002; Liden et al.

2004), subordinates may feel compelled to become emo-

tionally attached to the organization as a result of these

experiences, as social exchange theory would predict

(Settoon et al. 1996). This should lead to increased affec-

tive commitment.

Similarly, servant leadership has a strong ethical com-

ponent and promotes engagement in prosocial behaviors

benefiting others or the community (behaving ethically and

creating value for the community dimensions). These

aspects convey high moral standards, which are naturally

appealing to normatively committed individuals (González

and Guillén 2008). Through these behaviors, servant

leaders may thus instill a sense of moral rectitude and

perceived obligation to the organization, which should lead

to increased normative commitment (González and Guillén

2008; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010).

We also argue that servant leadership will lead to

increased perceived sacrifice commitment by raising

employees’ awareness of the costs of discontinuing the

relationship with the organization (Powell and Meyer

2004). As described above, servant leaders provide

employees with positive work experiences by, for example,

making their work more interesting (helping subordinates

grow and succeed and empowering dimensions) and

meaningful (behaving ethically and creating value for the

community dimensions). In addition to instilling a sense of

emotional attachment and perceived obligation to the

organization (i.e., affective and normative commitment),

these positive experiences may be perceived by employees

as valuable benefits or ‘‘side bets’’ (cf. Becker 1960;

McGee and Ford 1987). Such benefits make organizational

membership a worthwhile investment and make it more

costly for employees to leave the organization, therefore

leading to perceived sacrifice commitment (Powell and

Meyer 2004). This rationale is further supported by the fact

that perceived sacrifice commitment correlates positively

with affective and normative commitment (Meyer et al.

2002) and the fact that affective, normative, and perceived

sacrifice commitment display a comparable pattern of

relationships with commitment antecedents (e.g., perceived

organizational support; Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2009;

Vandenberghe et al. 2007).

Furthermore, meta-analyses (DeGroot et al. 2000; Ger-

stner and Day 1997; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer et al.

2002) report significant relationships between leadership

style or leader behaviors (e.g., charismatic leadership,

leader communication, leader consideration, leader initi-

ating structure, leader–member exchange, participative

leadership, or transformational leadership) and commit-

ment components. However, findings remain contradictory

regarding continuance commitment, because research

scarcely distinguished perceived sacrifice commitment

from few alternatives commitment (see Meyer et al. 2002,

for a discussion). Regarding servant leadership specifically,

research has essentially focused on the relationship with

affective commitment, without considering other commit-

ment components (e.g., Cerit 2010; Jaramillo et al. 2009a,

b; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck et al. 2014). The

only exception is Miao et al.’s (2014) study, which inclu-

ded affective, normative, and continuance commitment.

Yet again, that study did not distinguish between perceived

sacrifice and few alternatives commitment. In an attempt to

fill that gap in the literature and clarify contradictory

findings, we predict, based on the theoretical arguments

developed above, that servant leadership will be positively

related to affective, normative, and perceived sacrifice

commitment. As few alternatives commitment is based on

external contingencies (Vandenberghe et al. 2011), no

relationship is expected with servant leadership. Thus, the

following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1 Servant leadership is positively related to

affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2 Servant leadership is positively related to

normative commitment.

Hypothesis 3 Servant leadership is positively related to

perceived sacrifice commitment.

102 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

Servant Leadership, Employee Organizational

Commitment, and Employee Behaviors

As mentioned previously, commitment components repre-

sent distinct, yet related facets of the employee–organiza-

tion relationship. They are related in that, as suggested by

the above discussion, they share some common ante-

cedents. They are distinct in that, according to Meyer et al.

(2004), different motivational forces underlie commitment

components, which suppose that they may affect different

outcome variables. Based on this premise, in the next

sections, we develop hypotheses suggesting that solely

affective commitment is related to voice behaviors and

mediates the servant leadership–voice behaviors relation-

ship and solely normative commitment is related to anti-

social behaviors and mediates the servant leadership–

antisocial behaviors relationship. In order to capture the

unique effect of affective and normative commitment, we

will examine these relationships while controlling for the

other commitment components. This approach is

acknowledged in the commitment literature as being well

suited to isolate the unique effects of each commitment

component (e.g., Bentein et al. 2005; Lapointe et al. 2011;

Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2009; Stinglhamber et al.

2002; Vandenberghe et al. 2007).

Servant Leadership, Affective Commitment, and Voice

Behaviors

According to Meyer and Herscovitch (2001; see also

Becker 1992; Becker et al. 1996), affective commitment

stems from a sense of identification with the organization,

being involved with it, and sharing its values. Employees

with high levels of affective commitment genuinely desire

to remain with their organization. They feel autonomously

motivated to serve important and valued purposes and tend

to seek novelty and challenges in their role (Meyer et al.

2004). They follow an ideal and are seeking personal

accomplishment and self-growth (Higgins 1998; Meyer

et al. 2004; see also González and Guillén 2008). They

should therefore be likely to seek opportunities to con-

tribute to the organization and should be willing to put

forward their ideas such as through demonstrating voice

behaviors (Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998).

Voice refers to behaviors through which employees

proactively make suggestions or recommendations that can

enhance organizational efficiency and express concerns

about current and potential problems in the organization

(Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). As such, it

goes beyond merely criticizing and is aimed at changing

things for the good of the organization (Van Dyne and

LePine 1998). Voice behaviors are important for organi-

zations’ performance and contribute to continuous

improvement and learning (Detert and Burris 2007; Mor-

rison 2011; Nemeth and Staw 1989). As these behaviors

are intended to aid organizational success (Van Dyne and

LePine 1998) and as affective commitment primarily fos-

ters proactive contribution to the organization, those who,

as a result of the positive experiences provided by servant

leaders, are affectively committed to their organization,

should be particularly motivated to engage in voice

behaviors.

To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the

servant leadership–voice behaviors relationship. However,

previous studies examined the relationships between ser-

vant leadership and various forms of organizational citi-

zenship behaviors (e.g., Chen et al. 2015; Ehrhart 2004; Hu

and Liden 2011; Hunter et al. 2013; Jaramillo et al. 2009a;

Liden et al. 2008; Neubert et al. 2008; Newman et al. 2015;

Reed 2015; Walumbwa et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2013). For

example, research reported a positive association between

servant leadership and citizenship behaviors directed

toward the team (Hu and Liden 2011) and customers (Chen

et al. 2015), and between servant leadership and helping

behaviors (Neubert et al. 2008). As these behaviors and

voice behaviors are all falling within the broad category of

discretionary or extra-role behaviors (i.e., they all go

beyond individuals’ formal job responsibilities and con-

tribute to organizational success; Dalal 2005; Organ 1988;

Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009), servant leadership

plausibly contributes to facilitate employee voice behav-

iors. However, as discussed above, it is likely that this

relationship will be mediated through affective commit-

ment. This indirect relationship seems plausible in light of

Si and Li’s (2012) study, which, although it did not control

for the influence of other commitment components, found a

significant relationship between affective commitment and

voice behaviors. Thus, we formulate the following

hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4 Affective commitment is positively related

to employee voice behaviors, controlling for the other

commitment components.

Hypothesis 5 Affective commitment mediates a positive

relationship between servant leadership and employee

voice behaviors, controlling for the other commitment

components.

Servant Leadership, Normative Commitment,

and Antisocial Behaviors

Unlike the other commitment components, normative

commitment is loyalty-driven and stems from the inter-

nalization of certain norms concerning appropriate con-

duct, the terms of the psychological contract, and the need

to reciprocate favorable treatment (Meyer and Herscovitch

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 103

123

2001; Scholl 1981; Weiner 1982). Employees with high

levels of normative commitment remain with their orga-

nization as a mean to fulfill felt indebtedness toward the

organization. Their behaviors at work are determined by

their need to avoid feelings of guilt or anxiety or to gain

others’ respect (Meyer et al. 2004; Ryan and Deci 2000).

They prefer to play safe and do what they feel they ought to

do as organizational members (González and Guillén 2008;

Meyer and Parfyonova 2010; Meyer et al. 2004). Norma-

tively committed individuals should therefore be less likely

to move away from accomplishing their tasks to voluntarily

enact behaviors that could, in one way or another, harm the

organization or its members, such as antisocial behaviors

(Dalal 2005; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Robinson and Bennett

1995; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998).

In its broadest sense, the term ‘‘antisocial behavior’’ (or

‘‘deviant behavior’’) refers to negative or destructive

behaviors in organizations (Hershcovis et al. 2007;

Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998). Of critical importance,

antisocial behaviors are intended to hurt the organization

and/or its members and thus threaten their well-being

(Giacalone and Greenberg 1997; Gill et al. 2011; Robinson

and Bennett 1995; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998). For

example, employees display antisocial behaviors when

they purposely damage the organization’s property or when

they intentionally try to hurt others at work via their words

and actions (Bennett and Robinson 2000; Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly 1998; Stewart et al. 2009; Warren 2003). As

these behaviors are fundamentally detrimental to others

(Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998) and as normative

commitment primarily reflects a concern for the moral

significance of one’s actions toward the organization or its

members, employees who, as a result of the positive

experiences provided by servant leaders, become norma-

tively committed to their organization, should be less likely

to engage in antisocial behaviors.

In support of our contention, previous self-reported

studies found negative links between normative commit-

ment and interpersonal forms of antisocial behaviors (e.g.,

Ménard et al. 2011a, b). Previous research in related

domains (e.g., unethical behaviors and unethical decision-

making; Detert et al. 2008; Welsh et al. 2015) also suggest

that actions potentially detrimental to others are influenced

by moral obligation processes. In addition, previous

…